Signs at the 2019 March for Life in Washington, D.C. (Katie Yoder/National Review)He cannot comprehend the incoherence of championing abortion rights while intimidating a woman for exercising her right to free speech.

In Pennsylvania, an elected official has taken it upon himself to silence his own constituents in the name of the Constitution.

State representative Brian Sims, elected in 2012 to represent part of Philadelphia, evidently believes that his job requires him to avoid the state house and instead police the space in front of abortion clinics, protecting some of his citizens from pious pro-lifers.

Advertisement

Advertisement

This weekend, Sims filmed a livestream video as he harassed an older woman praying on the sidewalk in front of a Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania location. “She is an old white lady, who is going to try to avoid showing you her face,” Sims says from behind the camera, angling it to capture the woman on tape.

He proceeds to harangue her for several minutes, calling her “disgusting” and “racist,” and repeating “shame on you,” as she studiously ignores him. “Have you fed any children today, or have you just stood out in front of a Planned Parenthood shaming people for something that they have a constitutional right to do?” Sims asks, describing her protest as “an attack on the Constitution.”

The incoherence of claiming to champion the unenumerated constitutional right to abortion while intimidating a woman for exercising her free-speech rights evidently has escaped Sims.

Advertisement

Advertisement

“Bring it, Bible Bullies! You are bigots, sexists, and misogynists and I see right through your fake morals and your broken values. #BeReal,” Sims tweeted after pro-life group Live Action criticized his video Sunday afternoon.

Sims appears as unable to discern irony as he is to comprehend the First Amendment. Who is the bully: the woman standing silently on the sidewalk, or the politician shouting at her and chasing her away? And who is the misogynist: the pro-life woman praying the rosary, or the man calling her a disgusting racist?

For this feminist hero, chasing an elderly lady down the sidewalk isn’t resistance enough. “If you know who this woman is, if you can give me her address,” Sims says on film. “We’ll protest out in front of her home.”

Later, he asks those watching to follow his example and find occasions to shout down abortion-clinic protestors themselves. “Please call the cops,” he implores his viewers. “Tell them Representative Brian Sims is standing in his district telling somebody that using the rights that they’re using to protest women coming into Planned Parenthood is disgusting, and it’s wrong, and it’s shameful.”

Advertisement

For all his histrionics, Sims does acknowledge that the woman’s protest is legally protected. “You’re allowed to be out here,” he permits. “That doesn’t mean you have a moral right to be out here.”

Advertisement

One is reminded of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.), who insisted a few months ago — after being confronted with her own inaccuracies — that many people are “more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.”

Unfortunately for Sims — and fortunately for the rest of us — constitutional rights are determined by the text of the Constitution and not by his highly tenuous and individualistic interpretation of morality. And his victim was protected not only by the clear meaning of the First Amendment, but also by a recent Supreme Court decision explicitly affirming the right to protest outside abortion clinics.

In McCullen v. Coakley (2014), the Court decided unanimously that a Massachusetts law enforcing 35-foot “buffer zones” to keep protestors away from abortion clinics violated the First Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia’s concurrence in that case, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, is especially illuminating.

Advertisement

“The obvious purpose of the challenged portion of the Massachusetts Reproductive Health Care Facilities Act is to ‘protect’ prospective clients of abortion clinics from having to hear abortion-opposing speech on public streets and sidewalks,” he wrote of the Massachusetts law. Citing his own dissent in Hill v. Colorado, Scalia noted, “The public spaces outside of [abortion-providing] facilities . . . ha[ve] become, by necessity and by virtue of this Court’s decisions, a forum of last resort for those who oppose abortion.”

Because of Roe v. Wade and subsequent jurisprudence, opponents of abortion have no recourse to the ballot box. They have little ability to influence whether their tax dollars underwrite the procedure to which they are so strongly opposed. The effort to restrict their right even to protest this regime, then, is particularly sinister.

It is an attempt to remove a citizen’s very last means of dissenting in a normal constitutional order.

Advertisement

This is the effort in which Brian Sims is engaged, an elected state representative taking to the streets to intimidate citizens who would exercise their free-speech rights in order to question his own flawed moral reasoning and the cavalier dismissal of unborn human life.

Recommended Articles

Most Popular

If the Democrats are really tempted by impeachment, bring it on. Since the day after the 2016 election they have been threatening this, placing their chips on the Russian-collusion fantasy and then on the phantasmagoric charade of obstruction of justice. The attorney general accurately gave the ingredients of the ...
Read More

One of the more remarkable developments of the last 50 years is the relentless commitment of a segment of the American academic and cultural elite to selling a vision of American life that is slowly but relentlessly proving to be — on balance — more harmful for children and less joyful for adults, while also ...
Read More

A few weeks ago, I noted that Louisiana’s state legislature is contemplating legislation that would bar makers of cauliflower rice from labeling their product “rice,” contending that consumers will get confused. Instead, the rice growers want the product to be labeled . . . “riced cauliflower.”
But ...
Read More

In 2012, Barack Obama was still president, indeed had four years left in his presidency. "Gangnam Style" was a world-beating music video. Game of Thrones had just gotten started. And, oh yeah, the climate scientist Michael Mann sued National Review over a blog post.
Seven years later, this case has gone pretty ...
Read More

Celebrity attorney Michael Avenatti was indicted by federal prosecutors Wednesday for stealing the identity of his former client, Stormy Daniels, in order to claim more than $300,000 she was owed for a tell-all book about her efforts to expose President Trump.
In the indictment, prosecutors for the Southern ...
Read More

New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait has continued his turn toward conspiracy theory with a new essay. Inspired by our “Against Socialism” issue, it's titled “The New Socialism Panic Is the Right’s Trick to Justify Supporting Trump.” The central thesis of Chait’s submission is that National Review ...
Read More

Every presidential primary ends with one winner and a lot of losers. Some might argue that one or two once-little-known candidates who overperform low expectations get to enjoy a form of moral victory. (Ben Carson and Rick Perry might be happy how the 2016 cycle ended, with both taking roles in Trump’s cabinet. ...
Read More

Affixing one’s glance to the rear-view mirror is usually as ill-advised as staring at one’s own reflection. Still, what a delight it was on Wednesday to see a fresh rendition of “Those Were the Days,” from All in the Family, a show I haven’t watched for nearly 40 years. This time it was Woody Harrelson ...
Read More

At the time of the Roe v. Wade decision, I was a college student — an anti-war, mother-earth, feminist, hippie college student. That particular January I was taking a semester off, living in the D.C. area and volunteering at the feminist “underground newspaper” Off Our Backs. As you’d guess, I was ...
Read More